Do Family-Level Factors Associated With Bullying Perpetration and Peer Victimization Differ by Race? Comparing European American and African American Youth

Abstract

Patterns of—and correlates associated with—bullying perpetration and peer victimization have received widespread research attention. Somewhat less research has considered how protective factors in the parental domain help to buffer against both adverse behaviors. And perhaps more importantly, even less research has considered potential racial differences in the manner in which family-level variables relate to both bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Using a nationwide sample of adolescents, the present study examines (a) how parent/guardian support, mother’s parental monitoring, father’s parental monitoring, and family satisfaction buffer against bullying perpetration and peer victimization; and (b) whether these relationships vary across race. Data are derived from the 2009 to 2010 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children study in the United States. A total of 8,998 adolescents were included in the study sample, which consisted of 6,521 European Americans and 2,477 African Americans. Findings show that both European American and African American youth who received parental/guardian support were less likely to report being bullied. Among both African American and European American sub-samples, results showed that mother’s parental monitoring was negatively associated with both bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Father’s parental monitoring was negatively associated with peer victimization and bullying perpetration for European Americans only. Both European and African American youth who reported being satisfied with their family were less likely to report being bullied while European American youth who reported higher family satisfaction were less likely to engage in bullying. In sum, several family variables help to buffer against both bullying perpetration and peer victimization, but for the most part these relationships are race-invariant.

Keywords

peer victimization bullying perpetration family factors adolescents;race

Violence is of wide concern in U.S. school districts. One of the most pervasive forms of school violence is bullying, which is defined as an unwanted aggressive behavior that is perpetrated by another individual or group of individuals frequently (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014). In 2013, 22% of U.S. students (age 12-18 years) in public school districts nationwide reported being victimized by their peers (Zhang, Musu-Gillette, & Oudekerk, 2016). Also, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20.2% of students in Grades 9 to 12 nationwide reported being peer victimized on school property in 2015 (Kann et al., 2016). In terms of bullying perpetration, a recent comprehensive review indicated that between 5% and 13% of students reported bullying others (Hymel & Swearer, 2015). Consequently, scholars over the years have examined sociodemographic correlates of bullying and peer victimization, such as sex, age, and socioeconomic status (see Alvarez-Garcia, Garcia, & Nunez, 2015, for a review; Sweeting & West, 2001).

Children’s experiences in the home prior to entering school influence their capacity to cope and adapt at school, which also have an impact on their relationships with peers (Ladd, 1992). Moreover, social learning theorists postulate that the home environment and familial relationships can contribute to acquiring and maintaining children’s aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1973, 1986) and parenting practice(s) may serve as a model upon which children base their behaviors and socialization outside the home (Ladd, 1992). Research evidence suggests that bullying and peer victimization are partly influenced by the adolescent’s home environment (Espelage & Swearer, 2004). Not surprisingly, family characteristics, especially the childrearing practices of the parents whose children are involved in bullying, have gained considerable research attention (Baldry & Farrington, 1998, 2000; Curtner-Smith et al., 2006; Duncan, 1999; Flouri & Buchanan, 2003; Georgiou, 2008a, 2008b; Nickerson, Mele, & Osborne-Oliver, 2010; Smith & Myron-Wilson, 1998). For instance, Georgiou (2008b) found in a sample of 337 Greek Cypriot children and their mothers that maternal responsiveness was negatively related to children’s bullying behavior while overprotection was positively associated. Curtner-Smith and colleagues’ (2006) findings from a sample of children attending a Head Start program also showed that maternal empathy was most strongly correlated with both children’s relational bullying and overt physical bullying. A recent meta-analytic review of research on parenting and bullying concluded that both victims and bully/victims were most likely to be exposed to maladaptive parenting (Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). However, positive parenting characterized by parent–child communication, a warm and affectionate relationship, parental involvement and support, and parental supervision have been found to decrease peer victimization risk, although the effects were small to moderate for both victims and bully/victims (Lereya et al., 2013).

Despite the accumulated body of research highlighting the importance of family-level protective factors such as parental support, supervision, and monitoring, it is unclear whether such factors reduce adolescents’ bullying involvement when race is considered. One earlier study using the 2001 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey explored whether family, peer, and school factors were related to bullying involvement across race/ethnicity (Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007). Family-level factors included living arrangement, parental school involvement, and ease of parent–youth communication. Their findings revealed that parental communication was significantly related to bullying for both European American and African American students. However, other more nuanced family-level variables including parental monitoring, parental support, and family satisfaction were not considered.

The present study builds on prior research by examining whether the association between parental monitoring, parental support, and family satisfaction and adolescents’ bullying involvement varies by race in a nationally representative sample of European American and African American adolescents in Grades 6 to 10. Before we present the results of our investigation, we turn next to a brief overview of the research assessing racial differences in bullying and peer victimization as well as racial differences in parenting and children’s behavior. More specifically, this study examines whether there is a racial difference in the relationship between parental support and parental monitoring, and adolescents’ bullying involvement, either as perpetrators or victims.

Racial Differences in Bullying and Peer Victimization

Studies on racial differences in bullying and peer victimization have produced inconsistent findings. Several studies reported no racial difference (Seals & Young, 2003; Wang, Iannotti, Luk, & Nansel, 2010), whereas others reported significant racial differences in the prevalence of bullying perpetration and peer victimization. One study which included a nationally representative sample of U.S. adolescents in Grades 6 to 10 (42.6% European Americans and 18.2% African Americans) found that African Americans are involved in more bullying (physical, verbal, and cyber), but less peer victimization (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). Three studies reported lower rate of peer victimization among African Americans than among European Americans (Nansel et al., 2001; Spriggs et al., 2007; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2014). For instance, Spriggs and colleagues (2007) reported from a nationally representative sample (n = 11,033), which comprised 58.6% European Americans and 20.5% African Americans, that African Americans reported a significantly lower prevalence of peer victimization than their European American and Latino counterparts. Moreover, Juvonen, Graham, and Schuster (2003) found in a sample of 1,985 sixth graders (25.7% African Americans vs. 9.47% European Americans) that European Americans were more likely than youth of other races to be bullied at school. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice also indicated a higher percentage of peer victimization among European American youth than among African American youth (24% vs. 20%, respectively; Zhang et al., 2016) while some research somewhat contradictorily reports that African American youth are more likely to be nominated by their peers and teachers as aggressive (Graham & Juvonen, 2002) and less likely to report being bullied than their European American counterparts (Sawyer, Bradshaw, & O’Brennan, 2008).

Racial Differences in Parenting and Children and Adolescent Behavior

Culturally and socially defined role expectations shape parenting behavior and practices, and child developmental outcomes (Ogbu, 1981). Although all parents use child-rearing practices, parenting and how it relates to adolescents’ developmental outcomes might differ in various racial and ethnic groups. Thus, research attention has been given to the idea that parenting practices may have different effects on adolescent behavior outcomes across different racial groups.

One important area of research inquiry is whether there are racial differences in the association between parental discipline and children’s psychosocial adjustment. Numerous studies over the years have documented a positive association between parental discipline and children’s externalizing problems. Few longitudinal studies also found that parental discipline predicted externalizing problems for European American children only (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1996; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997; Landsford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 2004). An earlier study by Deater-Deckard and colleagues (1996), for example, found that mothers’ use of physical punishment significantly predicted behavior problems for European American, but not for African American children. Gunnoe and Mariner’s (1997) study, which examined the association of parental physical discipline and children’s behavior problems, also found that physical discipline was negatively associated with aggressive behavior in African American children.

Other studies have reported that harsh parenting contributed to children’s aggressive behavior, regardless of race and ethnicity (Gershoff, Lansford, Sexton, Davis-Kean, & Sameroff, 2012; Lau, Litrownik, Newton, Black, & Everson, 2006; Stormshak, Bierman, McMahon, & Lengua, 2000). In a longitudinal investigation of the links between mother’s use of physical discipline and children’s externalizing problems, Gershoff et al. (2012) found no racial differences in the association between discipline and externalizing problems over time. Lau and colleagues’ (2006) findings from a longitudinal study suggest that physical discipline contributed to increased externalizing problems for both African American and European American children. However, warm parental attitude was found to protect European American children against later behavior problems, but exacerbated early behavior problems in African American children. A great deal of research has focused on racial differences in one dimension of parenting practices—that is, physical discipline—and how it may affect children’s socialization outside the home. However, only a handful of studies have explored an association between protective elements of parenting and children’s involvement in bullying.

Many studies have explored whether there are racial differences in the link between parenting and children’s psychosocial adjustment. Although adolescence is a period where youth rely less on their caregivers and more on their peers, studies report a significant link between parental support and the development of positive self-perceptions for African American adolescents (Mboya, 1995; Taylor, 2000). Studies have also reported upon the importance of parental monitoring in reducing adolescent problem behaviors, particularly among African American youth. For instance, a study by Li, Feigelman, and Stanton (2000) found that in a sample of low-income, African American youth, low levels of perceived parental monitoring was associated with sexual behavior, substance use, school truancy, and violence. Kilgore, Snyder, and Lentz (2000) also found that poor parental monitoring was independently associated with conduct problems among African American boys and girls. In a nationally representative sample of 10- to 17-year-old adolescents, Shetgiri, Lin, Avila, and Flores (2012) reported that for children whose parents felt angry, bothered, or burdened with child care had higher odds of bullying. However, those youth whose parents provided adequate monitoring had lower odds of bullying. However, the abovementioned study did not consider racial differences in the association between parental monitoring and adolescents’ bullying involvement.

Research has also documented that mothers occupy a central position in many African American families (Collins, 1994), although one study reported that African American fathers exhibited less warmth but monitor their children more closely, and exhibited more responsibility for childrearing than European American fathers (Hofferth, 2003). In many studies investigating parenting practices, the role of fathers had often been underemphasized (Phares, 1996), although recent research attention has started to focus more on fatherhood and fathers’ involvement in parenting. One study (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002), which examined a link between parenting and bullying behavior from a sample of 1,344 adolescents aged 13 to 19 years showed that fathers’ involvement protected adolescent boys from peer victimization, although the findings could not be extended to girls and did not control for mothers’ involvement. To address this limitation, Flouri and Buchanan (2003) using a sample of 1,147 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years in the United Kingdom found that both low father involvement and low mother involvement contributed significantly and independently to bullying in adolescents. However, studies to our knowledge have not explored whether there may be racial differences with respect to the relationship between parental involvement and adolescents’ bullying perpetration and victimization.

The aforementioned literature has been important in establishing a knowledge base regarding some of the key correlates of peer victimization and perpetration across race, but several gaps in the research remain to be explored. As noted above, parenting practices and parent–child relationships may operate differently among adolescents of different races and so might protective factors at the family level. In addition, it is plausible that despite adequate parental support, consistent parental monitoring, and perceived family satisfaction, African American adolescents might be at a higher risk of bullying involvement relative to their European American counterparts. These adolescents are more likely to be confronted with racism, discriminatory treatment from their classmates and teachers, and structural disadvantages in their school (e.g., Davis & Jordan, 1994; Mazama & Lundy, 2012).

To test whether protective factors at the family level operate similarly among African American and European American adolescents, the following research questions are addressed:

Research Question 1: Are family-level protective factors (i.e., parental/guardian support, mother’s parental monitoring, father’s parental monitoring, and family satisfaction) associated with less likelihood of peer victimization for both European American and African American adolescents, controlling for sex, age, school grade, family economic status, and area of residence?

Research Question 2: Are family-level protective factors (i.e., parental/guardian support, mother’s parental monitoring, father’s parental monitoring, and family satisfaction) associated with less likelihood of bullying perpetration for both European American and African American adolescents, controlling for sex, age, school grade, family economic status, and area of residence?

Method

Sample and Data

Data for the present study were derived from the 2009 to 2010 HBSC dataset in the United States. HBSC is a standardized, international World Health Organization collaborative study with a repeated cross-sectional, nationally representative sample of public school students, aged 11, 13, and 15 years from 45 participating countries and regions across Europe and North America. These age groups represent early adolescence, a developmental period which is characterized by major physical, cognitive, and socioemotional changes (Eccles & Roeser, 2011). Adolescents completed an anonymous, self-report questionnaire, which was administered in their classroom after their lesson.

Measures

The dependent variables for this study are peer victimization and bullying perpetration, which were derived from the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Three items for peer victimization (α = .76) include, “How often have you been bullied: “Called names/teased,” “How often have you been bullied: Left out of things,” and “How often have you been bullied: Hit/kicked/pushed,” which were summed to create a final measure. Response options are “I have not been bullied in this way in the past couple of months,” “only once or twice,” “2 or 3 times a month,” “about once a week,” and “several times a week,” with scores ranging from 3 (lowest) to 15 (highest). A higher score reflects a greater degree of peer victimization. Three items for bullying perpetration (α = .79) include, “How often have you bullied others: Called names/teased,” “How often have you bullied others: Left out of things,” and “How have you bullied others: Hit/kicked/pushed,” which were summed to create a final measure. Response options are “I have not bullied another student in this way in the past couple of months,” “only once or twice,” “2 or 3 times a month,” “about once a week,” and “several times a week,” with scores ranging from 3 (lowest) to 15 (highest). A higher score reflects a greater degree of bullying perpetration.

The independent variables for this study are parental/guardian support, mother’s parental monitoring, father’s parental monitoring, and family satisfaction. Parental/guardian support (α = .84) was measured with six (summed) items: “My parent/guardian (a) helps me as much as I need, (b) lets me do the things I like doing, (c) is loving, (d) understands my problems, (e) likes me to make my own decision, and (f) makes me feel better when upset.” Response options for each item are “Don’t have or don’t see parent/guardian,” “Almost never,” “Sometimes,” and “Almost always.” Mother’s parental monitoring (α = .83) consists of five (summed) items: “How much does your mother (or female guardian) really know about . . . (a) who your friends are, (b) how you spend your money, (c) where you are after school, (d) where you go at night, and (e) what you do with free time.” Response options are “Don’t have/see mother/guardian,” “She doesn’t know anything,” “She knows a little,” and “She knows a lot.” Father’s parental monitoring (α = .94) consists of five (summed) items: “How much does your father (or male guardian) really know about . . . (a) who your friends are, (b) how you spend your money, (c) where you are after school, (d) where you go at night, and (e) what you do with free time.” Response options are “Don’t have/see father/guardian,” “He doesn’t know anything,” “He knows a little,” and “He knows a lot.” Family satisfaction was measured with the following item: “In general, how satisfied are you with the family relationships in your family? (Mark one circle next to the number that best describes your feelings.).” Response options range from 0 = “[we] have very bad relationships in our family” to 10 = “[we] have very good relationships in our family.”

The control variables for this study include sex, age, school grade, family economic conditions, parental employment, and location. Sex was measured with the question, “Are you a boy or a girl?” with response options of “male” or “female.” Age was measured with the following question: “How old are you,” with the response options ranging from 10 or younger to 17 or older. Grade in school was measured with the following question: “What grade are you in?” with a response option ranging from Grade 5 to Grade 10. Family economic conditions was measured with the following item: “How well off do you think your family is?” with a response option ranging from 1 = not at all well off to 5 = very well off. Parental employment was measured with the following two questions: “Does your father have a job?” and “Does your mother have a job?” Response options are 0 = no and 1 = yes, which was recoded as 0 = unemployed (both mother and father do not have a job), 1 = single income (either mother or father have a job), and 2 = dual income (both mother and father have a job), so that higher values reflect a greater degree of parental employment. Location was measured by broad residence classification, with response options including 0 = unclassified, 1 = urban, 2 = suburban, and 3 = rural.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

For the descriptive statistics (see Table 1), frequency and t tests were conducted to examine the prevalence and mean differences in the variables for the total samples as well as for European Americans and African Americans. Correlation analyses for the total sample, European American adolescents, and African American adolescents were also performed (see Tables 2 -4 for the total sample, European American adolescents, and African American adolescents). A total of 8,998 adolescents are included in the study sample, of which 6,521 were European Americans and 2,477 were African Americans. Slightly over 30% (37.4%) of European American adolescents reside in a suburban area, 35.1% reside in a rural area, and 19.9% in an urban area. In contrast, 36.6% of African Americans live in an urban, 34.8% in suburban, and 17.1% in a rural area. There were very few differences on sex, age, school grade, and family economic conditions between European American and African American adolescents. However, the percentage of parental unemployment was marginally higher for African American (3.0%) than for European American adolescents (2.2%).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Total (n = 8,998)		European Americans (n = 6,521)		African Americans (n = 2,477)		t Test
	n (%)	M (SD)	n (%)	M (SD)	n (%)	M (SD)	t Test
Sex
Male	4,434 (49.3)		3,179 (48.8)		1,255 (50.7)
Female	4,562 (50.7)		3,341 (51.2)		1,221 (49.3)
Age		12.9 (1.7)		12.9 (1.7)		13.1 (1.7)
School grade		7.5 (1.6)		7.5 (1.6)		7.6 (1.5)
Family economic		2.5 (0.9)		2.5 (0.9)		2.5 (1.0)
Parental employment
Unemployed (Ref)	217 (2.5)		142 (2.2)		75 (3.0)
Single income	3,151 (36.5)		2,179 (34.5)		972 (39.2)
Dual income	5,260 (61.0)		4,001 (63.3)		1,259 (50.8)
Location
Unclassified	781 (8.7)		497 (7.6)		284 (11.5)
Urban (Ref)	2,201 (24.5)		1,295 (19.9)		906 (36.6)
Suburban	3,300 (36.7)		2,437 (37.4)		863 (34.8)
Rural	2,716 (30.2)		2,292 (35.1)		424 (17.1)
Parental/guardian support		20.5 (3.1)		20.6 (3.0)		20.0 (3.3)	6.2***
Mother’s monitoring		18.0 (2.6)		18.2 (2.4)		17.5 (2.8)	10.3***
Father’s monitoring		15.7 (4.4)		16.3 (4.0)		14.0 (5.0)	19.1***
Family satisfaction		7.8 (2.3)		7.9 (2.3)		7.7 (2.5)	2.1***
Peer victimization		4.3 (2.4)		4.3 (2.3)		4.4 (2.5)	−2.2***
Bullying perpetration		3.8 (1.8)		3.7 (1.6)		4.1 (2.2)	−2.3***

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00.

Table 2.

Correlation Analysis for the Total Sample.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Sex	—
2. Age	.053**	—
3. School grade	.016	.936**	—
4. Family economic	−.026*	.055**	.051**	—
5. Parent/guardian support	.047**	−.063**	−.054**	−.201**	—
6. Mother’s monitoring	−.065**	−.186**	−.162**	−.168**	.354**	—
7. Father’s monitoring	.097**	−.166**	−.154**	−.184**	.243**	.328**	—
8. Family satisfaction	.113**	−.189**	−.196**	−.319**	.484**	.369**	.328**	—
9. Peer victimization	.011	−.089**	−.104**	.084**	−.157**	−.121**	−.098**	−.163**	—
10. Bullying perpetration	.045**	.054**	.036**	.062**	−.109**	−.206**	−.126**	−.125**	.270**	—

p < .01.

Table 3.

Correlation Analysis for European American Adolescents.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Sex	—
2. Age	.041**	—
3. School grade	.002	.943**	—
4. Family economic	−.025	.039**	.037**	—
5. Parent/guardian support	.041**	−.059**	−.056**	−.221**	—
6. Mother’s monitoring	−.058**	−.187**	−.171**	−.181**	.356**	—
7. Father’s monitoring	.096**	−.159**	−.152**	−.196**	.250**	.336**	—
8. Family satisfaction	.114**	−.194**	−.201**	−.336**	.509**	.403**	.370**	—
9. Peer victimization	.015	−.092**	−.101**	.088**	−.151**	−.107**	−.109**	−.179**	—
10. Bullying perpetration	.055**	.050**	.040**	.066**	−.110**	−.215**	−.126**	−.154**	.255**	—

p < .01.

Table 4.

Correlation Analysis for African American Adolescents.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Sex	—
2. Age	.088**	—
3. School grade	.057**	.920**	—
4. Family economic	−.028	.090**	.084**	—
5. Parent/guardian support	.057**	−.055**	−.042*	−.157**	—
6. Mother’s monitoring	−.089**	−.169**	−.136**	−.140**	.326**	—
7. Father’s monitoring	.094**	−.159**	−.156**	−.168**	.185**	.266**	—
8. Family satisfaction	.109**	−.175**	−.180**	−.280**	.429**	.295**	.256**	—
9. Peer victimization	.002	−.086**	−.113**	.073**	−.166**	−.146**	−.068**	−.126**	—
10. Bullying perpetration	.031	.049*	.023	.052*	−.084**	−.166**	−.079**	−.068**	.296**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

Regression Analysis

For the multivariate results for peer victimization and bullying perpetration by race, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were conducted, followed by regression coefficient comparison tests as suggested by Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero (1998; see Tables 5 and 6). For the regression coefficient comparison, a z test was calculated across groups for coefficients where at least one of the effects in one of the groups was significant.

Table 5.

Multivariate Regression Results for Peer Victimization by Race.

	European Americans			African Americans			z
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	z
Constant	8.831	.454		9.729	.692
Sex (female)	0.196	.059	.042	0.085	.105	.017
Age	0.014	.050	.010	0.065	.074	.045
School grade	−0.224	.053	−.153***	−0.324	.082	−.202***	1.024
Family economic	0.037	.033	.015	0.088	.053	.035
Urban (reference)
Suburban	−0.046	.072	−.010	0.054	.114	.010
Rural	0.223	.074	.045	−0.118	.145	−.017
Parental/guardian support	−0.058	.012	−.069***	−0.091	.019	−.110***	1.471
Mother’s monitoring	−0.026	.013	−.027*	−0.079	.020	−.087***	2.221*
Father’s monitoring	−0.027	.008	−.046**	−0.016	.011	−.032	−0.815
Family satisfaction	−0.146	.016	−.147***	−0.061	.024	−.061*	−2.96*
	R² = 06. F = 42.48***			R² = 06. F = 16.05***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .00.

Table 6.

Multivariate Regression Results for Bullying Perpetration by Race.

	European Americans			African Americans			z
	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	z
Constant	6.189	.320		5.860	.613
Sex (female)	0.200	.042	.061***	0.094	.093	.021	1.039
Age	0.040	.036	.042	0.139	.066	.110*	−1.317
School grade	−0.058	.038	−.057	−0.158	.073	−.113*	1.215
Family economic	0.005	.023	.003	0.049	.047	.023
Urban (reference)
Suburban	−0.034	.051	−.010	−0.039	.101	−.008
Rural	0.064	.052	.019	−0.053	.128	−.009
Parental/guardian support	0.001	.009	.001	−0.018	.017	−.025
Mother’s monitoring	−0.107	.009	−.163***	−0.109	.018	−.138***	0.099
Father’s monitoring	−0.017	.006	−.042**	−0.014	.010	−.032	−0.257
Family satisfaction	−0.059	.011	−.085***	−0.002	.021	−.002	−2.404*
	R² = 05. F = 37.05***			R² = 03. F = 7.68***

*p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .00.

Addressing the first research question, we found that in terms of peer victimization for European American adolescents (see Table 5), school grade (β = −.153, p < .00), parental/guardian support (β = −.069, p < .00), mother’s parental monitoring (β = −.027, p < .05), father’s parental monitoring (β = −.046, p < .01), and family satisfaction (β = −.147, p < .00) were negatively associated with peer victimization. With respect to the African American subsample, parental/guardian support (β = −.110, p < .00), mother’s parental monitoring (β = −.087, p < .00), and family satisfaction (β = −.061, p < .05) emerged as negative correlates of peer victimization. School grade was the covariate most highly associated with peer victimization (β = −.202, p < .00), indicating that adolescents reporting higher grades were less likely to report being victimized by their peers. The corresponding z statistics were 1.024 for school grade, 1.471 for parental/guardian support, 2.221 for mother’s parental monitoring, −.815 for father’s parental monitoring, and −2.96 for family satisfaction. These coefficient comparison tests indicate that there are few differences across the European American and African American subsamples with respect to how the covariates relate to peer victimization. In the cases where the coefficient comparison was significant, the results are not very illuminating as the individual coefficients themselves were significant in the subsample analysis (e.g., mother’s parental monitoring and family satisfaction).

Addressing the second research question, we found that with regard to bullying perpetration by European American adolescents (see Table 6), mother’s parental monitoring (β = −.163, p < .00) and father’s parental monitoring (β = −.042, p < .01), and family satisfaction (β = −.085, p < .00) were negatively associated with bullying perpetration. With respect to the African American subsample, age (β = .110, p < .05), and school grade (β = −.113, p < .05), and mother’s parental monitoring (β = −.138, p < .00) were associated with bullying perpetration. For the regression coefficient comparisons, the z statistics were 1.039 for sex, −1.317 for age, 1.215 for school grade, .099 for mother’s parental monitoring, −.257 for father’s parental monitoring, and −2.404 for family satisfaction. These coefficient comparison tests also suggest few differences across the European American and African American subsamples in terms of how the covariates are related to bullying perpetration, with the only significant z value emerging for family satisfaction. This indicates that the effect of family satisfaction on bullying perpetration was significantly different between European American and African American adolescents.

Discussion

The core aim of the present study was to examine whether the link between parental monitoring, parental support, and family satisfaction and adolescents’ bullying involvement (as both victims and perpetrators) varied by race. Specifically, we addressed the following research questions: (a) Are family-level protective factors (i.e., parental/guardian support, mother’s parental monitoring, father’s parental monitoring, and family satisfaction) associated with a lower likelihood of peer victimization for both European American and African American adolescents, controlling for sex, age, school grade, family economic status, and area of residence? and (b) Are family-level protective factors (i.e., parental/guardian support, mother’s parental monitoring, father’s parental monitoring, and family satisfaction) associated with a lower likelihood of bullying perpetration for both European American and African American adolescents, controlling for sex, age, school grade, family economic status, and area of residence?

Our results confirmed past research findings (e.g., Lereya et al., 2013), in that we found that both European American and African American youth who received parental/guardian support were less likely to report being bullied. Regardless of race, parental support is an important source of resilience and has been associated with many positive outcomes, which can reduce the risk of peer victimization (Rigby, 2000). We also found African American youth who reported that their mothers provided monitoring were less likely to be bullied and bully others. However, we also found that mother’s parental monitoring was negatively correlated with bullying and peer victimization for European American youth. In terms of father’s parental monitoring, we found that only European American youth who reported that their father provided parental monitoring were less likely to report peer victimization and bullying perpetration, which was congruent with other study findings (e.g., Lereya et al., 2013), and points to the important role of parental monitoring. Adolescents whose parents provide appropriate monitoring might feel protected and may be more likely to seek help when they are bullied (Unnever & Cornell, 2004). They might also be less likely to bully others as these youth may have developed secure attachment in the home, which can result in more positive peer interactions. Considering that mothers are regarded as the family head in many African American families (Collins, 1994), mother’s parental monitoring may be salient for African American youth in developing positive behavioral outcomes. With regard to family satisfaction, we found that European Americans who reported being satisfied with their family were less likely to report being bullied and engaging in bullying. However, African Americans who reported being satisfied with their family were less likely to report being bullied only. Although adolescence is a period where youth develop autonomy from their caregivers, family remains an important context in adolescent development and socialization.

In terms of sociodemographic (control) variables, several interesting findings emerged. Our findings suggest that European American girls were more likely to engage in bullying, which is contrary to some previous findings suggesting that boys engage in bullying more frequently than girls (Griffiths, Wolke, Page, Horwood, & The ALSPAC Study Team, 2006; Wang et al., 2009). However, recent studies suggest no sex difference in adolescent bullying (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009). For both European Americans and African Americans, students in a lower school grade were less likely to report being bullied, which is somewhat incongruent with past findings indicating that bullying peaks during early adolescence (normally in Grade 6; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). Among African Americans, older-age adolescents were more likely to report bullying others.

The present study has strengths of a nationally representative sample with sufficient representation from both European American and African American adolescents. One strength is its examination of the research questions with an attendant focus on racial differences which have been largely unexplored in the research on bullying. It is particularly important to investigate whether theoretical mechanisms operate similarly or differently across race and ethnicity to better understand risk factors and negative outcomes associated with bullying and peer victimization. Such information can contribute to more complete theoretical models, which can help inform evidence-based practice and policy efforts.

However, several limitations also need to be acknowledged. The first concerns the cross-sectional research design, which limits causal inferences about the family-level factors and bullying perpetration and peer victimization. A longitudinal research design can help to overcome this concern. Another limitation is the reliance of adolescents’ self-reports; using reports from multiple informants (e.g., parents, peers, and teachers) could yield greater reliability. It is important to investigate the role of family-level factors in bullying and peer victimization from other subgroups of bullying, including bully/victims and noninvolved groups (see Piquero, Piquero, & Underwood, 2017) which can contribute to a more complete understanding of bullying dynamics. And finally, because of the study’s large sample size, readers should interpret the relationships in both statistical and substantive terms, largely by examining the standardized regression coefficients.

Practice Implications

Findings from the present study have implications for practice. For the most part, parental support, father and mother’s parental monitoring, and perceived family satisfaction are found to be important protective factors for both European American and African American adolescents. Thus, it is essential that practitioners working with adolescents involved in bullying conduct a valid and thorough assessment of the family structure and parent–adolescent relations in the home. This is a necessary first step toward understanding where to target interventions. It is important for practitioners to consider that some African American families, particularly those living within a history of oppression, racism, and poverty, are likely to hold unique perspectives on adolescents’ socialization in schools and ways to handle bullying situations (Dishion & Stormshak, 2007).

Scholars over the past several decades have recognized the importance of involving parents in creating positive school climates and adolescents’ peer interactions (Izzo, Weissberg, Kaspro, & Frendrich, 1999; Marcon, 1999), and programs that tap into the home as well as the school (i.e., homeschool collaboration) have been found to be useful in reducing adolescents’ bullying involvement (see, for example, Sheridan, Warnes, & Dowd, 2004). However, parental involvement might be challenging for African American parents, which might be derived from their own negative school experiences (Koonce & Harper, 2005). Moreover, for some African American adolescents, particularly those living in a single-parent household or are raised by extended family members, such programs might not be entirely feasible. For African American parents, practitioners might work together with parents to address these challenges (Koonce & Harper, 2005) and then turn toward carrying out prevention efforts more generally.

Conclusion

Bullying perpetration and peer victimization represent a significant problem among children and adolescents. There has been much attention to these issues, including better identification of the risk factors related to both behaviors (see Piquero et al., 2017). However, somewhat less research has considered the extent to which there are racial differences across these behaviors and whether there are racial differences in how various protective factors may help to buffer from both outcomes. The present study was one small step in this area and we hope that future research builds on this effort by also considering a wider range of familial factors—and in a longitudinal manner so as to examine how the dynamic nature of family factors and family processes vary as children move into adolescence and away from their parents.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Jun Sung Hong is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. He is also an assistant professor (summer) in the Department of Social Welfare at Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul, South Korea.

Bee Ryou is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Social Welfare at Sungkyunkwan University BK21 Plus.

Alex R. Piquero is Ashbel Smith professor of Criminology and associate dean for Graduate Programs in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas; adjunct professor at the Key Center for Ethics, Law, Justice, and Governance, Griffith University Australia; and faculty affiliate with the Center for Violence and Injury Prevention, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis. He has received several research, teaching, and mentoring awards and is a fellow of both the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. In 2014, he received the University of Texas System Regents’ Outstanding Teaching Award.

References

Alvarez-Garcia

Garcia

Nunez

J. C.

(2015). Predictors of school bullying perpetration in adolescence: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23, 126-136. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.007

Baldry

A. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(1998). Parenting influences on bullying and victimization. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 237-254. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00364.x

Baldry

A. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10, 17-31. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1298(20001/02)10:1<17::AID-CASP526>3.0.CO;2-M

Bandura

(1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barboza

G. E.

Schiamberg

L. B.

Oehmke

Korzeniewski

S. J.

Post

L. A.

Heraux

C. G.

(2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 101-121. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1

Collins

P. H.

(1994). The meaning of motherhood in Black culture. In Staples

(Ed.), The Black family: Essays and studies (pp. 165-173). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Curtner-Smith

M. E.

Culp

A. M.

Culp

Scheib

Owen

Tilley

. . . Coleman

P. W.

(2006). Mothers’ parenting and young economically disadvantaged children’s relational and overt bullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 177-189. doi:10.1007/s10826-005-9016-7

Davis

J. E.

Jordan

W. J.

(1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on African American males in middle and high school. The Journal of Negro Education, 63, 570-587.

10.

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(1996). Physical discipline among African American and European American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1065

11.

Dishion

T. J.

Stormshak

E. A.

(2007). Intervening in children’s lives: An ecological, family-centered approach to mental health care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

12.

Duncan

R. D.

(1999). Maltreatment by parents and peers: The relationship between child abuse, bully victimization, and psychological distress. Child Maltreatment, 4, 45-55. doi:10.1177/1077559599004001005

13.

Eccles

J. S.

Roeser

R. W.

(2011). Schools as developmental context during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 225-241. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.210.00725.x

14.

Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

(2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Flouri

Buchanan

(2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The moderating role of father involvement and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 126-133. doi:10.1002/ab.90014

16.

Flouri

Buchanan

(2003). The role of mother involvement and father involvement in adolescent bullying behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 634-644. doi:10.1177/0886260503251129

17.

Georgiou

S. N.

(2008a). Bullying and victimization at school: The role of mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 109-125. doi:10.1348/000709907X204363

18.

Georgiou

S. N.

(2008b). Parental style and child bullying and victimization experiences at school. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 213-227. doi:10.1007/s11218-007-9048-5

19.

Gershoff

E. T.

Lansford

J. E.

Sexton

H. R.

Davis-Kean

Sameroff

A. J.

(2012). Longitudinal links between spanking and children’s externalizing behaviors in a national sample of White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American families. Child Development, 83, 838-843. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01732.x

20.

Gladden

R. M.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

Hamburger

M. E.

Lumpkin

C. D.

(2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

21.

Graham

Juvonen

(2002). Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 173-199. doi:10.1177/0272431602022002003

22.

Griffiths

L. J.

Wolke

Page

A. S.

Horwood

J. P.

, & The ALSPAC Study Team. (2006). Obesity and bullying: Different effects for boys and girls. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91, 121-125. doi:10.1136/adc.2005.072314

23.

Gunnoe

M. J.

Mariner

C. L.

(1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 768-775. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1997.02170450018003

24.

Hofferth

S. L.

(2003). Race/ethnic differences in father involvement in two-parent families: Culture, context, or economy? Journal of Family Issues, 24, 185-216. doi:10.1177/0192513X02250087

25.

Hymel

Swearer

S. M.

(2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70, 293-299. doi:10.1037/a0038928

26.

Izzo

C. V.

Weissberg

R. P.

Kaspro

W. J.

Frendrich

(1999). A longitudinal assessment of teacher perceptions of parent involvement in children’s education and school performance. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 817-839. doi:10.1023/A:1022262625984

27.

Juvonen

Graham

Schuster

M. A.

(2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231-1237. doi:10.1542/peds.112.6.1231

28.

Kann

McManus

Harris

W. A.

Shanklin

S. L.

Flint

K. H.

Hawkins

. . . Zaza

(2016). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(6), 1-178. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/ss/pdfs/ss6506.pdf

29.

Kilgore

Snyder

Lentz

(2000). The contribution of parental discipline, parental monitoring, and school risk to early-onset conduct problems in African American boys and girls. Developmental Psychology, 36, 835-845. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.6.835

30.

Koonce

D. A.

Harper

Jr. (2005). Engaging African American parents in the schools: A community-based consultation model. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 55-74. doi:10.1080/10474412.2005.9669527

31.

Ladd

G. W.

(1992). Themes and theories: Perspectives on processes in family-peer relationships. In Park

R. D.

Ladd

G. W.

(Eds.), Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 3-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

32.

Landsford

J. E.

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(2004). Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 801-812. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00273.x

33.

Lau

A. S.

Litrownik

A. J.

Newton

R. R.

Black

M. M.

Everson

M. D.

(2006). Factors affecting the link between physical discipline and child externalizing problems in Black and White families. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 89-103. doi:10.1002/jcop.20085

34.

Lereya

S. T.

Samara

Wolke

(2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1091-1108. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.001

35.

Feigelman

Stanton

(2000). Perceived parental monitoring and health risk behaviors among urban low-income African-American children and adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 43-48. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(99)00077-4

36.

Marcon

R. A.

(1999). Positive relationships between parent school involvement and public school inner-city preschoolers’ development and academic performance. School Psychology Review, 28, 395-412.

37.

Mazama

Lundy

(2012). African American homeschooling as racial protectionism. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 723-748. doi:10.1177/0021934712457042

38.

Mboya

(1995). A comparative analysis of the relationship between parenting styles and self-concepts of Black and White high school students. School Psychology International, 16, 19-27. doi:10.1177/0143034395161002

39.

Nansel

T. R.

Overpeck

Pilla

R. S.

Ruan

W. J.

Simons-Morton

Scheidt

(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100. doi:10.1001/jama.285.16.2094

40.

Nickerson

A. B.

Mele

Osborne-Oliver

K. M.

(2010). Parent-child relationships and bullying. In Jimerson

S. R.

Swearer

S. M.

Espelage

D. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 187-210). New York, NY: Routledge.

41.

Ogbu

J. U.

(1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413-429.

42.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x

43.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Long

J. D.

(2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259-280. doi:10.1348/026151002166442

44.

Phares

(1996). Conducting nonsexist research, prevention, and treatment with fathers and mothers: A call for a change. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 55-77. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00665.x

45.

Piquero

A. R.

Piquero

N. L.

Underwood

M. K.

(2017). Correlates of—and consequences for—bully-victims in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15, 359-373. doi:10.1177/1541204016657396

46.

Rigby

(2000). Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 57-68. doi:10.1006/jado.1999.0289

47.

Sawyer

A. L.

Bradshaw

C. P.

O’Brennan

L. M.

(2008). Examining ethnic, gender, and developmental differences in the way children report being a victim of “bullying” on self-report measures. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 106-114. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.12.011

48.

Seals

Young

(2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.

49.

Sheridan

S. M.

Warnes

E. D.

Dowd

(2004). Home-school collaboration and bullying: An ecological approach to increase social competence in children and youth. In Espelage

D. L.

Swearer

S. M.

(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 245-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Shetgiri

Lin

Avila

R. M.

Flores

(2012). Parental characteristics associated with bullying perpetration in U.S. children aged 10 to 17 years. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 2280-2286. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300725

51.

Smith

P. K.

Myron-Wilson

(1998). Parenting and school bullying. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 3, 405-417. doi:10.1177/1359104598033006

52.

Solberg

M. E.

Olweus

(2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239-268. doi:10.1002/ab.10047

53.

Spriggs

A. L.

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

Haynie

D. L.

(2007). Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 283-293. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.04.009

54.

Stormshak

E. A.

Bierman

K. L.

McMahon

R. J.

Lengua

L. J.

(2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems in early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 17-29. doi:10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_3

55.

Sweeting

West

(2001). Being different: Correlates of the experience of teasing and bullying at age 11. Research Paper in Education, 16, 225-246. doi:10.1080/02671520110058679

56.

Taylor

R. D.

(2000). An examination of the association of African American mothers’ perceptions of their neighborhoods with their parenting and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 267-287. doi:10.1177/0095798400026003001

57.

Unnever

J. D.

Cornell

D. G.

(2004). Middle school victims of bullying: Who reports being bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373-388. doi:10.1002/ab.20030

58.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Luk

J. W.

Nansel

T. R.

(2010). Co-occurrence of victimization from five subtypes of bullying: Physical, verbal, social exclusion, spreading rumors, and cyber. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35, 1103-1112. doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsq048

59.

Wang

Iannotti

R. J.

Nansel

T. R.

(2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368-375. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021

60.

Ybarra

M. L.

Espelage

D. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 293-300. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.02.009

61.

Zhang

Musu-Gillette

Oudekerk

B. A.

(2016). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2015 (NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Education and Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics.